What would the objective top tier computer be if budget weren't

>>57793454
I can build you one if you are actually asking for yourself

>>57793477
Sure, I'd be interested in seeing what the objective best performance wise is. Everything seems opinion based though rather than objective performance ability.

Give me a board slotted with an FPGA and 1-2 of every type CPU architecture on it, a shitload of RAM, and some crazy GPUs.

Covering all bases is objectively the best. Watch me boot into a hypervisor on my POWER8 chip and run Windows with CPU/co-processor + GPU passthrough as well as Solaris on the SPARC.

This shit would cost an impossible amount.

>>57793516
It's going to be:
4 GTX Titans
6700k processor
64 GB of ram
Watercool everything

>>57793587
That doesn't seem as unrealistic as I were expecting, expensive but not nightmare tier. Can you even reliably 4 way sli titans I thought nvidia doesn't support more than 2 now?
also >6700k
is it better than the new broadwell-e cpus? Always assumed an overclocked 6900k or 6850k would be next to top or something since they have more cores while still being able to get 4.0ghz

Didn't deadmau5 pretty build that?
You gotta think he would strive for that. He built it this year I think

File: udvXz.png (616KB, 1363x830px) Image search: [Google]

616KB, 1363x830px

>>57793454
Dual or octa socket motherboard with newest gen 20+ core Xeon E7s and 3TB DDR4, dual smasung pro m.2 ssds in raid + 10x10TB HDDs. Two titans and two nvidia quadro GPUs, for gaming and vm with passthrough etc.

>>57794376
That'll make a bad gaming machine. No game is multithreaded enough to use 20+ cores, and the way they get 20+ cores on a die is by lowering the clock speed a lot.

all you'll do is bottleneck your GPUs. Which won't perform very well for gaming anyway since Quadros have their drivers optimized for non-gaming tasks (accuracy and generality over raw speed at the small subset of things games use)

>>57794569
So would a 6850k oc work decently for gaming while remaining future proof relatively? I assume a bit more than 4 core would be ideal for the future.

>>57794569
With 2x titan and 2X quadro you can game on one ofthe titans and use the others for computing or VMs

Also, the xeons will perform just fine. I've been gaming on a G3220 with no problems, which is a shit CPU.

Also, with DX12, mantle etc, the Xeons will really shine.

Not to mention that you can compute and game at the same time with performance to spare.

>>57794569
Even with the lowered clock speed those fuckers beat an i5 in single threaded performance. The extra memory bandwidth also helps.

The quadros are not going to be used for gaming, that's why he listed two titans in there.

Almost no one needs a quadro, they're aimed at reliability for GPGPU stuff. Having said that I use OpenCL constantly and have had several GPU fans die on me from constant use, I could use a few quadros. I'm not the norm here I'm the exception.

I don't really need 3TB's of memory, 512GB of registered ECC would get the job done.

He did ask if there was an objective best for each category, but you're overstating how dependent modern games are on CPU performance and you're underestimating Xeon performance before actually looking at real world performance.